Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!ka From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: The Return of KAL 007 Message-ID: <655@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Mon, 2-Jul-84 23:43:42 EDT Article-I.D.: hou3c.655 Posted: Mon Jul 2 23:43:42 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Jul-84 03:22:18 EDT References: <383@tty3b.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 25 One of the least believable ideas in the article was that Moscow might have agreed not to present evidence of U. S. involvement with the KAL 007 flight in return for an agreement to demilitarize the shuttle. This notion strikes me as absurd. First of all, U. S. / Soviet are more frigid that they have been in years; I have a hard time believing that either side would even try to negotiate such a touchy agreement. Let's face it; the American and Soviet diplomats do not sit down and say, "We appear to have a conflict. Let's sit down and try to find a win-win solution that will meet both our needs." Do you think that Moscow would seriously expect Washington to keep its word on such an agreement of vice versa? The Soviets are quite nationalistic; it is hard to imagine them sacrificing face on the world stage to gain a private concession from the United States. Similarly, there are plenty of hawks in the current administration; I have a hard time picturing this administration "giving in to Soviet blackmail". For that matter, if such an agreement was reached, why hasn't it been leaked to the press by now? Sure, it is possible for the U. S. government to keep a secret if everybody involved agrees that it is vital to the security of the United States, but what would such an agreement protect the security of the United States or would it sacrifice the security of the United States to protect the image of Ronald Reagan? Any such agree- ment with the Soviet Union would be about as secret as the "covert" war against Nicaragua. Kenneth Almquist